If you are using Internet Explorer 10 (or
later), you might find some of the links I have used won't work properly unless
you switch to 'Compatibility View' (in the Tools Menu); for IE11 select
'Compatibility View Settings' and then add this site (anti-dialectics.co.uk). I have as yet no idea how
Microsoft's new browser, Edge,
will handle these links.

If your Firewall/Browser has a pop-up blocker, you
will need to press the "Ctrl" key at the same time or these and the other links won't work!

I have adjusted the
font size used at this site to ensure that even those with impaired
vision can read what I have to say. However, if the text is still either too
big or too small for you, please adjust your browser settings!

Unfortunately, older links to
the comments pages at Lenin's Tomb no longer work now that
Haloscan has been changed.

Mr G (who
has been sand-bagged so many times at this site even I am beginning to feel
sorry for him) is ever keen to prove he is quite capable of making an ass of
himself in public without my help, thank you very much.

Anyway,
he has returned to the fray (as predicted). Those unfamiliar with his earlier
attempts to plumb the depths of idiocy can check them out
here,
here,
here,
here, and
here.

As
part of a drive toward clear language, may I propose that we honour Hume's
principle, and consign Hegel, Heidegger and much of French 'philosophy' to the
flames?

One or two comrades
replied, but Mr G (predictably)
posted an irrelevant comment from Alasdair MacIntyre in response, alleging
that I in fact accept Hume's reactionary social theories, to which I replied:

JohnG:

"Rosa is quite right to raise Hume in relationship to this discussion given his
importance in more modern ideas about clarity of exposition. MacIntyre discusses
here the source of these ideas, which Rosa seems to have imbibed so
uncritically"

Once more, Mr G substitutes invention and innuendo for argument. Nowhere do I
endorse Hume's political or social views (although, as one of the Scottish
School of Historical Materialists, he was heavily influential on Kant, Hegel and
thus on Marx).

He might just as well argue that Tony Cliff was a supporter of Napoleon
Bonaparte simply because Cliff once quoted him!

True to form, Mr G
then posted
this, his latest homage to irrelevancy:

Hume's philosophical views are heavily informed by his
social and historical situation. When he discusses the human understanding and
human sentiments it is very particular kinds of understanding and sentiments he
is discussing.

Rosa can't understand this because she is so locked into the tradition that Hume
represents. She repeatedly denies this because she doesn't recognise that it IS
part of a tradition, a tradition, as MacIntyre notes, explicitly concerned with
defending a particular kind of social order at a moment of historical
transition.

Rosa cannot even admit of the possibility because to do so would be to undermine
the whole point of her anti-philosophy, and some of her wilder claims about the
role of philosophy in history, which are if anything even cruder then Dawkins's
account of religion.

In fact Rosa represents not only A philosophical tradition, but THE
philosophical tradition of capitalist modernity (added to of course in the
period of social change and upheaval that comprise philosophy's development
post-Hume).

And given the relationship between this country and the development of
capitalism the connections between Hume and contemporary ideologies ought to be
glaringly obvious, even if Hume was considerably sharper and more fearless then
the ideologues who succeeded him.

Hume was explicitly concerned, as MacIntyre argues in the passage quoted, and
indeed demonstrates in the book from which the passage is drawn: 'whose justice,
which rationality?' that his whole theory of sentiments, identity etc, whilst
aimed at an older tradition of philosophical thought, was also aimed against the
very possibility of any appeal to justice independently of property rights, and
of course the superiority of the kind of Whig order that prevailed in England.

This was not some additional add-on to his philosophical thought. It was its
very basis and rationale (for which of course in his time there were
comprehensible reasons).

Reading Hume you get a sense of the tremendous boldness of the times in
confronting an older order but also the deep attachment to the kind of emerging
order which MacIntyre describes. You also see, as you do with Adam Smith, an
intellectual contemporary engaged in much the same project, how deluded he was
about the likely outcome of such social transformations which his theories were
designed to speed-up. To detach his philosophy from this context is to fail
completely to understand what its actually about.

Rosa's Dawkins's like philosophical position (no doubt she claims not to be
interested in philosophy, but its not unusual to be mistaken about your own
actual position) is sufficiently hysterical and wrongheaded to be a good case
study of contemporary delusions both about philosophy and 'clarity'.

Apparently Hume
was not as transparent as all that. Not to Rosa anyway. [Spelling errors
corrected.]

What this has got to
do with any of my beliefs we will leave to Mr G's psychiatrist to tell us. But,
Mr G has never been one to allow facts to spoil good fiction, so it is no
surprise to find he hasn't quoted a single passage of mine from this site, or
from anywhere else for that matter, in support of his fabulations. Apparently,
Mr G is psychic and can read minds. So, readers must take care not to post anything critical of him at
Lenin's blog, or they will risk accusations of being in collusion with
shape-shifting lizards.

Taking each item of
fantasy, one at a time:

Hume's philosophical views are
heavily informed by his social and historical situation. When he discusses the
human understanding and human sentiments it is very particular kinds of
understanding and sentiments he is discussing.

Rosa can't understand this because she is so locked into the tradition that Hume
represents. She repeatedly denies this because she doesn't recognise that it IS
part of a tradition, a tradition, as MacIntyre notes, explicitly concerned with
defending a particular kind of social order at a moment of historical
transition.

But where is the
incriminating evidence? Mr G does not say, he just repeats the same thing, over
and over. And it is no good asking him to provide proof; I have done so many
times. The result is the same: yet another repetition of the same old mantra.
However, while he is keen to point fingers at me, he conveniently forgets that
he is quite happy to be taught philosophy by that well known working class
theorist, and one time coal miner, Hegel. Even so, if we have to chose
ruling-class hacks, give me Hume any day; at least he is comprehensible, and so
his errors are easily found.

Now, in full cry,
spittle dribbling down his double chin, we get this:

Rosa cannot even admit of the
possibility because to do so would be to undermine the whole point of her
anti-philosophy, and some of her wilder claims about the role of philosophy in
history, which are if anything even cruder then Dawkins's account of religion.

In fact Rosa represents not only A philosophical tradition, but THE
philosophical tradition of capitalist modernity (added to of course in the
period of social change and upheaval that comprise philosophy's development
post-Hume).

But, he hasn't read my
account of "philosophy in history" since I haven't published it yet!
To be sure, I have posted very brief summaries of some of my
ideas in this area (for example,
here), but they were written for comrades who told me my essays
were either too long or too difficult. Picking holes in them (but he doesn't
even address what I say there, so I apologise for attributing to Mr G a modicum of
rationality) would be like complaining that Marx did not fully explain the
capitalist system in Wage, Labour and Capital.

The middle section of
the above lengthy advert for Mr G's capacity to bore for his country seems to be
so irrelevant to what I said that it is in danger of bringing discredit on the
word "irrelevant". So, I will pass over it in silence.

But what of this?

Reading Hume you get a sense of the
tremendous boldness of the times in confronting an older order but also the deep
attachment to the kind of emerging order which MacIntyre describes. You also
see, as you do with Adam Smith, an intellectual contemporary engaged in much the
same project, how deluded he was about the likely outcome of such social
transformations which his theories were designed to speed-up. To detach his
philosophy from this context is to fail completely to understand what its
actually about.

Rosa's Dawkins's like philosophical position (no doubt she claims not to be
interested in philosophy, but its not unusual to be mistaken about your own
actual position) is sufficiently hysterical and wrongheaded to be a good case
study of contemporary delusions both about philosophy and 'clarity'.

Apparently Hume
was not as transparent as all that. Not to Rosa anyway. [Spelling errors
corrected.]

Again, where have I
claimed "to be interested in philosophy"? And where is my hysteria? [Note this
sexist comment by the way.]

And whether or not
Hume is clear, in comparison to Hegel, he is like crystal. But, Mr G prefers
that logical incompetent and mystic to Hume. They deserve each other.

By the way, anyone got
some matches?

Er..., perhaps not;
the last time Mr G was given some matches, this is what he did with them: